DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
External source of air – (¶0030 establishes “The panel 31 is provided with a port 32, that has shape and size suitable to allow coupling with a source of air (e.g. a tube, not shown), external to the display case 10.”, meaning the source of external air is not shown)
Valve – (the element has no numerical identifier found within the Specifications filed 04/12/2024)
Filter – (the element has no numerical identifier found within the Specifications filed 04/12/2024)
Removable cover – (the element has no numerical identifier found within the Specifications filed 04/12/2024)
Detecting probe - (¶0031 states this element is not shown)
The detecting probe having:
a detecting end projecting from an internal side of the panel to face inside the museum display case and (Given the detecting probe is not shown, as stated in ¶0031, the non-shown detecting probe’s detecting end is also not shown projecting from an internal side of the panel to face the inside of the museum display case)
having a control end accessible from an external side of the panel for connection to a control unit (Given the detecting probe is not shown, as stated in ¶0031, the non-shown detecting probe’s control end is also not shown)
Control unit – (¶0031 states this element is not shown)
Electric cable of the appliance – (¶0032 states the electric cable is not shown)
The appliance – (¶0032 states the appliance is not shown)
Plug of an electric cable of an appliance (¶0034 states both of the plug and appliance are not shown)
Gasket system (¶0028 states this element is not shown)
A socket of an external electric cable (¶0034 states this element is not shown)
A plug of an electric cable of an appliance (¶0034 states this element is not shown)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The Examiner respectfully points to the MPEP 608.01(i) and 37 C.F.R. 1.75 which states “The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. (See 1.58(a)). Further, the MPEP 608.01(o) states “The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP 2111.01 and 2173.05(a)”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “hygroscopic material” in claims 1, 16, & 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a silica gel (hygroscopic material) at least described in paragraph 0028 of the 04/12/2024 specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: service implement in claims 1, 16, 17, & 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a panel at least described in paragraph 0029 of the 04/12/2024 specification and shown in Fig. 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “characteristics” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding characteristics described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a low relative humidity at least described in paragraph 0009 of the 04/12/2024 specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “electric unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a front side plug 37 and a rear side plug 38 at least described in paragraph 0034 of the 04/12/2024 specification and shown in Figs. 2 and 4.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goppion (WO0184986).
Regarding claim 1, Goppion (WO0184986) shows a service implement for a museum display case, the service implement comprising:
a panel (see Annotated Figure 1, Fig. 1 – the structure of element 7 comprises of a face that is a panel) having a port (see Annotated Figure 1 – the panel comprises of a port where the rectangular structure of element 7’ is located therein),
wherein the panel has a shape and dimensions relative to those of a door (6, Fig. 1 - Dictionary.com defines Door: “a usually swinging or sliding barrier by which an entry is closed and opened”; element 6 is a door that slides to open or close the compartment 2) of a compartment (2, Fig. 1 – the panel has dimensions and a shape that relate to those of a door 6 of compartment 2) hosting hygroscopic material (Col. 7, Lines 16-25 – the drawer 6 or door, which is inside the compartment 2 section, houses the hygroscopic material) for control of relative humidity inside the museum display case (Col. 1, Lines 10-18).
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation “wherein the panel has a shape and dimensions corresponding to those of a door of a compartment ”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel having a shape and dimensions corresponding to those of a door of a compartment instead of having the panel having a shape and dimensions relative to those of a door of a compartment, because applicant has not disclosed that having the panel have a shape and dimensions corresponding to those of a door of a compartment provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the panel have a shape and dimensions corresponding to those of a door of a compartment or having the panel have a shape and dimensions relative to those of a door of a compartment, because both sizes of the panel performs the function of enclosing the compartment section devoid of a compartment door equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect IV.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goppion’s’ panel to have a shape and dimensions corresponding to the door of the compartment door for the predictable benefit of sufficiently opening and closing the compartment to keep air contaminants and foreign objects out of the compartment, while also preserving the air quality inside the case with relatively small equipment to save space (Page 3, Lines 19-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 6, Goppion shows further comprising a through socket suitable for connection to a detecting probe (10, Fig. 1 – Dictionary.com defines Probe: “any of various testing devices or substances: such as a usually small object that is inserted into something so as to test conditions at a given point”; the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the identification of element 10, of which is a thermometer of which tests the conditions of the temperature of the air, is located on the outside of the structure of element 7, to which the location of the detecting probe 10, signified by the dashed leader-lines, is represented by an aperture, or through socket, suitable for connection to the detecting probe 10; see Drawing Objection above).
Regarding claim 7, Goppion shows wherein the detecting probe (10, Fig. 1; see Drawing Objection above) is any of a particle counter, gas detector, thermometer (Page 9, Lines 34-35), a VOC detector, and a hygrometer.
Regarding claim 8, Goppion shows further comprising the detecting probe connected in the through socket (10, Fig. 1 –element 10, of which is a thermometer of which tests the conditions of the temperature of the air, is located on the outside of the structure of element 7, to which the location of the detecting probe 10, signified by the dashed leader-lines, is represented by an aperture, or through socket, suitable for connection to the detecting probe 10; see Drawing Objection above),
the detecting probe having a detecting end (Fig. 1 – the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the detecting probe 10 comprises of an end that performs the function of detecting; see Drawing Objection above) projecting from an internal side of the panel to face inside the museum display case (Fig. 1 – as the Applicant shows any detecting probe at all, much less a detecting end of the detecting probe to be projecting from an internal side of the panel to face inside the museum display case, as does Goppion show with its detecting probe 10 having a detecting end that projects from an internal side of the panel to face inside the museum display case; see Drawing Objection above) and having a control end (Fig. 1 – the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the detecting probe comprises of a control end to relay the information from the detecting end to the control unit; as the Applicant shows any detecting probe at all, much less a detecting probe having a control end that is accessible from an external side of the panel, as does Goppion show with the detecting probe 10 having a control end that communicates with the control unit, or the controller, and is accessible from an external side of the panel for connection to a control unit, or controller; see Drawing Objection above) accessible from an external side of the panel for connection to a control unit (Page 11, Lines 11-15; see Drawing Objection above).
Regarding claim 9, Goppion shows wherein the detecting probe is any of a particle counter, gas detector, thermometer (Page 9, Lines 34-35), a VOC detector, and a hygrometer.
Regarding claim 10, Goppion shows further comprising a passage (see Annotated Figure 1 – element 7 comprises of a passage for an electric cable of an appliance to be placed inside the museum case) for an electric cable (8, Fig. 1) of an appliance (7, Fig. 1) to be placed inside the museum display case (Fig. 1 – as the Applicant shows either of an appliance or an electric cable thereof, as does Goppion show; see Drawing Objection above).
Regarding claim 12, Goppion shows further comprising an exhaust outlet (5, Fig. 1), the exhaust outlet to exhale air from inside the museum display case (Page 9, Lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 15, Goppion shows wherein the panel is provided with an electric unit (Fig. 1 – element 7 is conditioning equipment that gets its electricity from power cord 8), the electric unit comprising a front side plug (8’, Fig. 1) for connection to a socket of an external electric cable (Fig. 1 – As the Applicant shows a socket of an external electric cable, as does Goppion show with the power cord 8 comprising of a front side plug 8’ that is for connecting to an externa electric cable, of which the Examiner would also note the phrase “for connection to a socket of an external electric cable” is a statement of intended use; see Drawing Objection above) and an internal side socket for connection to a plug of an electric cable of an appliance inside the museum display case (Fig. 1 - as the Applicant shows a plug of an electric cable of an appliance inside the museum display case, as does Goppion show the cable 8 comprises of an internal interface where the cord attaches to that which it powers; that interface of which comprises of the internal side socket for connection to the device of which it powers via a plug of an electric cable of an appliance inside the museum display case, of which the Examiner would also note the phrase “for connection to a plug of an electric cable of an appliance” is a statement of intended use; see Drawing Objection above).
Claims 2-4 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goppion (WO0184986), in view of Nam et al (KR20030028188), hereinafter referred to as Nam.
Regarding claim 2, Goppion shows wherein the device comprising the port is suitable for connection to an external source of air (Fig. 1 - the Examiner is interpreting the statement of “the port is suitable for” as a “configured to” statement; as the Applicant shows the port is suitable for connection to an external source of air as outlined in ¶0030 which establishes “The panel 31 is provided with a port 32, that has shape and size suitable to allow coupling with a source of air (e.g. a tube, not shown), external to the display case 10”, as does Goppion show the device 7 comprising a port that is suitable for connection to an external source of air via pipes 4’ and 5’; see Drawing Objection above).
However, Goppion lacks showing the port is suitable for connection to an external source of air.
Nam (KR20030028188), a controlled air transfer system is in the same field of endeavor as Goppion which is a controlled air transfer system.
Nam teaches the port (see Annotated Figure 2) is suitable for connection to an external source of air (see Annotated Figure 2 – external source of air from element 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the port of Goppion to incorporate the teachings of the port of Nam, which would provide a suction device to remove moisture and dust in the air and store it at an external location (¶0021).
PNG
media_image2.png
302
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 3, Goppion shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including the port.
However, Goppion lacks showing wherein the port is provided with a valve.
Nam teaches wherein the port is provided with a valve (53, see Annotated Figure 2 – as the Applicant has shown a valve, as does Nam show with the valve 53; see Drawing objection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the port of Goppion to incorporate the teachings of the port of Nam, which would provide a valve associated with the suction device to redirect the flow of the removed moisture and dust in the air (¶0047 – Lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Goppion shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including the port.
However, Goppion lacks showing wherein the port is provided with a filter.
Nam teaches wherein the port is provided with a filter (see Annotated Figure 2 – as the Applicant has shown a filter, as does Nam show with the filter 17; see Drawing Objection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the port of Goppion to incorporate the teachings of the port of Nam, which would provide a filtering means to provide fine duct in the air (¶0040, Lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 13, Goppion shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 12 including the exhaust outlet.
However, Goppion lacks showing wherein the exhaust outlet is provided with a filter.
Nam teaches the exhaust outlet is provided with a filter (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the port of Goppion to incorporate the teachings of the port of Nam, which would provide a filtering means to provide fine duct in the air (¶0040, Lines 6-7).
Claims 5, 11, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goppion (WO0184986), in view of Qian (US 2015/0257615).
Regarding claim 5, Goppion shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including the port.
However, Goppion lacks showing wherein the port is provided with a removable cover, and the removable cover is engaged with the port such that the port is closed when not in use.
Qian (US 2015/0257615), a port of an air transfer system, is in the same field of endeavor as Goppion which is a port of an air transfer system.
Qian teaches wherein the port is provided with a removable cover (330, Fig. 3 - Dictionary.com defines Remove: “to change location, position, station, or residence of”; as the Applicant has shown a removable cover, as does Qian show the cover 330 to be able to change position, or be removable; see Drawing Objection above), and the removable cover is engaged with the port (220, Fig. 3) such that the port is closed when not in use (Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the port of Goppion to incorporate the teachings of the port and the removable cover of Qian, which would provide a removable door to provide a vacuum seal to the port when closed (¶0013, Lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 11, Goppion shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the panel and the museum case.
However, Goppion lacks showing wherein the panel is provided with a gasket system, the gasket system to ensure air tightness of the museum display case.
Qian teaches the panel is provided with a gasket system (530, Fig. 4 – as the Applicant shows a gasket system, as does Qian show with the gasket system 530), the gasket system to ensure air tightness of the device (¶0050, Lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panel of Goppion to incorporate the teachings of the panel and gasket system of Qian, which would provide a removable door to provide a vacuum seal to the port when closed (¶0013, Lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 14, Goppion shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 12 including the exhaust outlet.
However, Goppion lacks showing wherein the exhaust outlet is provided with a removable cover, and the removable cover is engaged with the exhaust outlet such that the exhaust outlet is closed when not in use.
Qian teaches wherein the outlet (202, Fig. 11) is provided with a removable cover (330, Fig. 3), and the removable cover is engaged with the outlet such that the outlet is closed when not in use (Fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust outlet of Goppion to incorporate the teachings of the outlet and removable cover of Qian, which would provide a removable door to provide a vacuum seal to the port when closed to keep foreign debris out of the system (¶0013, Lines 6-8).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goppion (WO0184986).
Regarding claim 20, Goppion (WO0184986) shows a museum display case comprising:
a compartment (2, Fig. 1) hosting hygroscopic material (Col. 7, Lines 16-25 – the drawer 6, which is inside the compartment section which is devoid of a compartment door, houses the hygroscopic material) for control of relative humidity inside the museum display case (Col. 1, Lines 10-18), the compartment comprising a compartment section devoid of a compartment door (Fig. 1 – Dictionary.com defines Door: “a usually swinging or sliding barrier by which an entry is closed and opened”; as the Applicant claims a compartment 21 with its compartment section, as seen in the Applicants own Figure 1, being devoid of a compartment door, by showing a compartment 21 with an open side for a sliding drawer 20, as does Goppion shows the compartment comprising a compartment section devoid of a compartment door, by showing the compartment 2 comprising of the space of a compartment section devoid of a compartment door, even with the drawer 6 being a sliding barrier by which an entry into the compartment section is closed or opened);
and
a service implement comprising a panel (see Annotated Figure 1, Fig. 1 – the structure of element 7 comprises of a face that is a panel) with a port (see Annotated Figure 1 – the panel 7 comprises of a port where the rectangular structure of element 7’ is located therein on the panel),
the panel being applied to and having dimensions relative to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door (Fig. 1 - the panel 7, as it rests inside the compartment section, is applied to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door, and has dimensions that relate to a portion of the compartment section devoid of the compartment door).
Regarding claim 20 and the limitation “the panel being applied to and having dimensions corresponding to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the panel being applied to and having dimensions corresponding to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door instead of having the panel being applied to and having dimensions relative to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door, because applicant has not disclosed that having the panel being applied to and having dimensions corresponding to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the panel being applied to and having dimensions corresponding to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door or having the panel being applied to and having dimensions relative to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door, because both sizes of the panel performs the function of enclosing the compartment section devoid of a compartment door equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect IV.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goppion’s’ panel to have dimensions corresponding to the compartment section devoid of the compartment door for the predictable benefit of sufficiently opening and closing the compartment to keep air contaminants and foreign objects out of the compartment, while also preserving the air quality inside the case with relatively small equipment to save space (Page 3, Lines 19-23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
While the Examiner has indicated allowable subject matter, the Examiner would also like to point to MPEP 2111.02 (Effect of Preamble), Section II,
II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE
The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Additionally, the Examiner would state that in light of significant disclosure issues, the Examiner would stress vigilance in the amendments, as the statement of allowable subject matter could be reconsidered, depending on how the Applicant chooses to amend or change claimed method elements in an apparatus claim in future amendments to the claims that might shed light /and/or present additional issues to consider/reconsider before allowability is ultimately rendered.
Regarding claim 16, the closest prior art of record is Goppion (WO0184986), and while this reference does disclose the panel and door of the compartment of the museum display case in its manner, however this reference does not disclose the structure required to meet the bar for the claimed limitations of having the door replaced with the panel, and routing external air through the panel into the museum display case. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Goppion as doing so would employ hindsight reasoning and compromise the mechanical continuity of Goppion by structurally modifying out of its best mode use.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related XXX:
US 2023/0414012 - Goppion discloses a museum case with a base mounted ventilation system
JPH11299597 – Miyazaki discloses a ventilated exhibition cabinet with filtering means
US 2023/0190012 – Goppion discloses a museum showcase with a removable panel
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
